Nah, it's still solid red. Every cycle gives Democratic daydreams about making it blue but it's sort of like Republicans and Pennsylvania that way. There is a growing Latino population that could swing it within a decade or so but a lot of that relies on greater voter registration of those groups and voter turnout.

If God hates gays so much. Why does he keep making them? Can't he just like make it so there is no such thing as *** if he doesn't like it?

lolgaxe wrote:

I think the better question is if *** is unnatural then why do so many animals do it?

I cringe and grit my teeth every time I hear a Christian try to deride homosexuality by saying that it is "unnatural". The answer is YES it is totally natural. This falls in line with the question of what DOES separate us from animals and what SHOULD separate us from animals. Now before your bile-ducts start spazzing out: I am not saying that homosexuals are committing any bigger perversion than anybody else that rejects God's will by giving into their animal passions.. God knows I am certainly guilty of it. That is the point. Every human is a 'sinner' in God's eyes not because of what they do or what they have done but because of what we are. Yes, in that respect we are no different than animals.. however what does make us different than animals is that God has given us a way to be forgiven of these fleshly tendencies and to be liberated from wanting to commit them and instead to commit ourselves to spiritual tendencies. Animals will always be animals but human-beings have a God given potential to be liberated from the will of the flesh and to become spiritual beings. God doesn't make people sinners (e.g. homosexuals) but God created us with a free-will and that free-will has a natural tendency for fleshly desires.. and this isn't limited to mere sexual excess but applies to anything that we do that is an affront to our spiritual potential.. The works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, moral impurity, promiscuity, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and anything similar. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, self-control.

Yes it is wrong for a Christian to single out homosexuality as sexual immorality above any other fleshly act that causes us to turn from our spiritual potential. God wants spiritual desires to take precedence over our fleshly desires. It's as simple as that.. and it's just not possible to make God the center of your life when your primary method of self-identification is what kind of person you like having *** with.

In regards to people (Christians included) that always point to the death sentencing in the Old Testament and ignore that to dishonor your parents or to work on the Sabbath is also a death sentence; it is nothing short of BAD biblical teaching and misses the entire point of why God wanted to single out a nation of people for himself.. Those laws were for the Nation of Israel in order to keep them preserved and singled out so that they would continue to exist throughout all of history, preserve scripture, and give birth to The Messiah..

Nah, it's still solid red. Every cycle gives Democratic daydreams about making it blue but it's sort of like Republicans and Pennsylvania that way. There is a growing Latino population that could swing it within a decade or so but a lot of that relies on greater voter registration of those groups and voter turnout.

Ya i looked into it after I said that, seems like even by 2036 with maintained status quo voter turnout it would still go red. Barring some unforeseen run on the polls that is. Average estimate appears to be about 2028 for any real shot at it.

I simultaneously support the illegality of child abuse *and* oppose giving every child in the country a free pet. Shocking, and similarly, this isn't contradictory at all.

...wut?

I seriously can't make any logical sense out of this analogy. Is it an analogy? sh*t...whatever. Anyway, the statement itself really doesn't work, You could maybe have said something more like...i dunno...um....hm....I actually don't know, but I'm sure you could have come up with something better for an analogy...

(5 minutes pass wherein I forgot to click "post")

Oh, I know, "I simultaneously support the illegality of child abuse *and* oppose the public flogging of those who commit the aforementioned crime". It's a bit silly, but at least it's closer in relation to supporting *** marriage but not supporting providing the same gov't benefits and straight marriage. I mean, really, yours is a bit of an exaggeration. So's mine, but at least mine makes sense.

Do you really not get the analogy, or you just pretend not to because it's easier to make a joke about it than to respond to what I said? I thought it was pretty straightforward. I even explained, quite clearly, that we shouldn't simplify things down to a "for/against <some group>" view. I also pointed out the difference between harming someone and giving them something.

Maybe an easier analogy would work? How about this one: It's not inconsistent at all for me to believe that we should not run around kicking and beating up panhandlers while simultaneously oppose giving them money. Does that make more sense? They are only inconsistent if one adopts a simplistic "I'm for panhandlers" position. Which is really silly.

The weird issue is that while most people instantly grasp this most of the time, as soon as it's presented in one of a smallish set of very specific political cases, suddenly it's like their brains melt and run out of their ears and they think it makes perfect sense to argue that being opposed to giving *** couples who marry government benefits is consistent with wanting to suppress the free speech of *** people (or that if one holds one position they must hold the other). It's absurd. It only makes sense if you adopt a complete "I support anything that benefits *** people" position. Which, just like adopting the "I'm for panhandlers" position, is silly.

Just because someone opposes *** marriage benefits does not mean that they hate *** people. In exactly the same reason that people who oppose handouts for panhandlers don't hate panhandlers, and people who oppose giving every child a free dog or pony don't hate children. Get it? Sheesh! Why do I have to spend so much time explaining stuff that should be easy to understand?

I like how Gbaji always compares homosexuals to child rapists and dog @#%^ers and always compares SSM rights to giving a child a pet. The contempt just drips through with each post.

Even better when he's ironically insisting that he doesn't feel that way: "Just because I don't want homosexuals to have the right to legally marry the partner they love doesn't mean I hate them! I don't want to give every toddler a kitten either!"

I like how Gbaji always compares homosexuals to child rapists and dog @#%^ers and always compares SSM rights to giving a child a pet. The contempt just drips through with each post.

Even better when he's ironically insisting that he doesn't feel that way: "Just because I don't want homosexuals to have the right to legally marry the partner they love doesn't mean I hate them! I don't want to give every toddler a kitten either!"

Sounds like God's just bitter that no one has gone to town on his prostate, yet.

Then again, I bet Jesus was a total bottom.

Nah I think God is straight, which is why Satan told him to @#%^ off and moved his *** out. God of course being the typical control freak he is, told all his friends he threw him out and if anyone said different they could just @#%^ off and move in with Satan. Gods more of the sneak into some virgins tent in the middle of the night, rape her and tell her if she said anything no one would believe her anyway, and that the ******* child would be raised as if it were her boyfriends.

South Park seems to confirm this in the sense Satan is a Giant flaming homosexual.

To be fair, he has related stories of his exploits having awkward *** with uncomfortable women and them saying things he finds interesting, but that everyone sees for the obvious calls for help that they are. Not often, fortunately. I don't want to have to pay the water bill for all the extra showers I'd need to take after reading each one.

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

I have difficulty thinking God doesn't want it from behind, considering he's the one who made it feel so good.

All kinds of straight folk like it from behind. Women and Men alike say it enhances the climax. You don't need to be a ***** to take it in the rear.

This just further convinces me that straight men are the gayest things alive.

I got all my hair cut off last week - very short. My husband said it made me look like a young boy...then proceeded to get a big ol hard-on.

That's just disturbing.

____________________________

Theophany wrote:YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU. someproteinguy wrote:Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist. Astarin wrote:One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.

Theophany wrote:YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU. someproteinguy wrote:Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist. Astarin wrote:One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.

ETA: I'm from Tennessee and now live in Florida, but I don't feel the need to defend either state. I'm not even sure it's possible to do so....

Edited, Mar 4th 2014 2:50pm by Belkira

Texas is a big state. No need to generalize and some defense might be justified. But is a solid red state with very conservative politics that tend to sway, or attempt to sway much of the rest of the country.

I mean, sometimes it gets a reputation which is 100% deserved, but I just don't think that's the case here.

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

someproteinguy wrote:

Something about Austin having a bunch of hippies I bet.

No, IDrownFish has been on the defensive about Texas lately.

Eh. It's been popping up a lot over here recently. I usually don't join in in the Asylum Politics™, so if it seems like I've been talking about Texas a lot it's because it's one of the few things I actually do talk about in the Asylum. Other times I just don't post.

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Probably because he is from Texas.

I picked up on that.

ETA: I'm from Tennessee and now live in Florida, but I don't feel the need to defend either state. I'm not even sure it's possible to do so....

I like how Gbaji always compares homosexuals to child rapists and dog @#%^ers

I "always" do this? Really? So in this thread somewhere? No?

Quote:

and always compares SSM rights to giving a child a pet.

I compare any government benefit to giving a child a free pet. Because it's the best example I can think of where we'd all agree that just because you oppose the government spending money on something that benefits some group, doesn't mean you hate that group.

Quote:

The contempt just drips through with each post.

That's entirely within your own imagination.

Quote:

Even better when he's ironically insisting that he doesn't feel that way: "Just because I don't want homosexuals to have the right to legally marry the partner they love doesn't mean I hate them! I don't want to give every toddler a kitten either!"

And? It's a valid point. When someone's argument rests on the claim that if I don't want to grant marriage benefits to *** couples, it means that I hate homosexuals, it's perfectly legitimate to point to another case where I don't want my government to spend money providing something nice to a group but where it doesn't mean at all that I hate that group as a means of showing how illogical that argument is. Nothing ironic about it at all.

Do you think that the only reason for wanting to deny some government benefit for a group is because you hate that group? Cause that would be a fun one to try to defend.

Regularly. If a semantic victory over the use of "always" is what you want to pin your argument on here, that says volumes by itself.

How often is regularly? IIRC, I made that comparison one time, in one thread, years ago, and I'm reasonably certain I didn't say that homosexuals were rapists or whatever. I almost certainly used child rapists as an example of another form of behavior which people might oppose to make a broader point about how social mores don't have to be "fair" to everyone in society.

And I know for a fact that I have *never* argued that *** couples should not be granted marriage benefits because they're just like child rapists. Ever. So good job bringing up something completely irrelevant, I guess.

Quote:

Quote:

Do you think that the only reason for wanting to deny some government benefit for a group is because you hate that group?

Only? No. Yours? Eh, maybe. Less "hate" and more just like I said: contempt.

And yet, your only evidence for this is that I oppose the government providing said benefit. Circular much?

And yet, your only evidence for this is that I oppose the government providing said benefit. Circular much?

Nah, my "evidence" is your words and behavior on the forum. I don't expect you to agree or admit to it so, no, I'm not interested in "proving" it to you. People can draw their own conclusions by what they read.

I like how Gbaji always compares homosexuals to child rapists and dog @#%^ers

I "always" do this? Really? So in this thread somewhere? No?

You constantly make a "slipperly slope" argument equating them, yes.

On top of being a horrible American and human being, try not to be a liar, too.

Jophiel wrote:

gbaji wrote:

and always compares SSM rights to giving a child a pet.

I compare any government benefit to giving a child a free pet. Because it's the best example I can think of where we'd all agree that just because you oppose the government spending money on something that benefits some group, doesn't mean you hate that group.

Right. It's like how I don't hate homeowners; just the free money they get for buying a house.

____________________________

Allegory wrote:

Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.

Only? No. Yours? Eh, maybe. Less "hate" and more just like I said: contempt.

No, I don't see that. I see him genuinely not understanding why we'd wish to offer relational benefits to *** couples over non-coupled *** people or non-coupled straight people. I believe he overlooks a lot of the non-financial benefits which really should be offered, and focuses on the financial benefits which should really be offered to 'all couples with children' rather than all straight couples.

And if someone argued that anyone who opposed the mortgage tax deduction hated homeowners, I'd disagree with them too, for exactly the same reason.

Do you oppose the mortgage interest tax deduction?

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

I see him genuinely not understanding why we'd wish to offer relational benefits to *** couples over non-coupled *** people or non-coupled straight people. I believe he overlooks a lot of the non-financial benefits which really should be offered, and focuses on the financial benefits which should really be offered to 'all couples with children' rather than all straight couples.

I understand perfectly why people wish to grant those benefits to *** couples. I disagree that we should. Those are completely different things. My argument largely revolves around the fact that the cost to society if same *** couples don't marry is significantly lower than the cost to society if opposite *** couples don't. The question is not "how does it hurt you if a *** couple marries?". It's "how does it hurt you if they don't?".

The disagreement usually ends out being over why we have those benefits in the first place. Most people think that the benefits exist to help the people who receive them. I think that's a foolish reason to provide benefits because all benefits "benefit" the people who receive them. It's a circular argument. We could justify *any* set of benefits to *any* group by that logic (like say, giving every child in the country a free pet). To me, if you want to argue why we should provide some benefit to a group, you should argue that by doing so, the rest of us gain some benefit or avoid some cost. It's easy to make that argument for granting marriage benefits to couples consisting of one male and one female. It's hard as **** to make that argument for a same *** couple.

And let me point out (for the zillionth time). Granting benefits to couples who are raising children is completely separate from granting benefits to people who marry. One pays people to raise children. The other encourages people to form into relationships most beneficial to raising children *if* they reproduce. That's a pretty important distinction.

I understand perfectly why people wish to grant those benefits to *** couples. I disagree that we should. Those are completely different things. My argument largely revolves around the fact that the cost to society if same *** couples don't marry is significantly lower than the cost to society if opposite *** couples don't. The question is not "how does it hurt you if a *** couple marries?". It's "how does it hurt you if they don't?".

The social effects of marriage show no indication of being tied to sexual orientation, and primarily revolve around stability for children, the increased stability of two income households in times of stress, etc. Not rocket science. There's certainly an argument that there is no benefit to legally codifying cohabitation. There is no valid argument that there is a benefit to codifying hetro cohabitation but not SSM. This isn't new ground, been endlessly thrashed out in court cases and academia for decades now.

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

And if someone argued that anyone who opposed the mortgage tax deduction hated homeowners, I'd disagree with them too, for exactly the same reason.

Do you oppose the mortgage interest tax deduction?

No, I don't. Why? My point is that my position isn't based on liking or disliking "homeowners". In this specific case, it's about making it easier to own a home. We clearly believe that society is better off having more people owning their own homes, than fewer. Ergo, it makes sense to make owning a home easier. It's not about liking or disliking homeowners. That's silly.

In a similar way, society is better off having more opposite *** couples married than fewer. Ergo, it makes sense to make marrying easier for them (and provide them some incentives to do it). Society is not affected one way or the other if same *** couples marry. Thus, there's no reason to provide state benefits to them if they do. They're still free to marry if they want, but we have no reason to provide them an incentive to do so.